Submitted:
03 March 2026
Posted:
04 March 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Mental disorders are among the leading causes of disability worldwide and impose substantial economic costs on individuals, healthcare systems, and national economies. While the clinical rationale for early identification of mental disorders is well established, the economic implications of systematic early screening and detection remain underemphasized in policy discourse. This paper examines the economic advantages of early screening and early detection of common and severe mental disorders, integrating findings from epidemiology, cost-of-illness studies, cost-effectiveness analyses, and health systems research. Evidence consistently demonstrates that delayed diagnosis is associated with increased healthcare utilization, reduced labor force participation, lower lifetime earnings, and higher social welfare expenditures. Conversely, early detection—particularly when integrated into primary care and early intervention services—has been shown to improve functional outcomes and, in many contexts, to be cost-effective or cost-saving from a societal perspective. The analysis supports the conclusion that early mental health screening constitutes not only a clinical priority but also a fiscally responsible strategy for health system sustainability and economic productivity.
Keywords:
early detection
; mental health screening
; mental health economics
; cost-effectiveness analysis
; return on investment
; health systems sustainability
; productivity loss
; human capital
; early intervention
; public health policy
Introduction
Mental disorders represent a major component of the global burden of disease. Comprehensive epidemiological analyses from the Global Burden of Disease Study have demonstrated that mental and substance use disorders account for a substantial proportion of years lived with disability worldwide (Whiteford et al., 2013). Depression, in particular, consistently ranks among the top causes of disability across countries and income levels (World Health Organization [WHO], 2017). Beyond their clinical consequences, mental disorders generate profound economic effects that extend far beyond the health sector.
The economic burden associated with mental illness encompasses direct medical expenditures, including hospital care, outpatient services, and pharmacotherapy, as well as indirect costs related to productivity loss, absenteeism, presenteeism, and premature mortality. In high-income countries, indirect costs frequently exceed direct treatment costs. In a comprehensive economic analysis of major depressive disorder in the United States, Greenberg et al. (2015) found that workplace-related costs represented a dominant share of the overall economic burden. Similarly, analyses of schizophrenia have demonstrated substantial societal costs arising from unemployment, disability payments, and caregiver burden (Cloutier et al., 2016). At the global level, projections suggest that mental disorders may result in cumulative economic losses of trillions of dollars over coming decades if not adequately addressed (Bloom et al., 2011).
Despite the magnitude of this burden, there remains a persistent gap between the onset of symptoms and the initiation of treatment. Large-scale epidemiological surveys have shown that the median delay between the onset of mental disorders and first treatment contact can extend for several years, particularly in mood and anxiety disorders (Wang et al., 2005). Such delays are not economically neutral. Prolonged untreated illness is associated with symptom progression, increased risk of recurrence, greater functional impairment, and elevated risk of comorbidity. From a health systems perspective, late detection frequently results in crisis-driven care, including emergency department visits and inpatient hospitalization, which are considerably more expensive than timely outpatient intervention.
The economic rationale for early screening and early detection in mental health is closely aligned with established principles of preventive medicine. In physical health domains, screening programs are justified when early identification reduces downstream morbidity, mortality, or treatment costs. In mental health, the same logic applies, although the pathways through which economic benefits accrue are often mediated through functional recovery, labor force participation, and long-term human capital preservation rather than immediate reductions in acute mortality. Because many mental disorders emerge during adolescence and early adulthood, they coincide with critical developmental periods for educational attainment and workforce entry. Epidemiological evidence indicates that approximately half of lifetime mental disorders begin by age fourteen and three quarters by age twenty-four (Kessler et al., 2005). Untreated mental illness during these periods can disrupt schooling, skill acquisition, and social integration, leading to long-term reductions in earnings and employment stability.
From a human capital perspective, mental health is a foundational determinant of economic productivity. Early detection and intervention therefore function as investments that preserve individual earning capacity and reduce long-term dependency on social welfare systems. Failure to identify and treat mental disorders at an early stage can result in cumulative disadvantage that amplifies costs across the life course. Economic evaluations increasingly recognize that when productivity gains and societal costs are incorporated, mental health interventions often demonstrate favorable cost-effectiveness ratios. For example, modeling analyses conducted under the auspices of the WHO have estimated that scaling up treatment for depression and anxiety yields a positive return on investment, largely through improvements in work capacity and productivity (Chisholm et al., 2016). While these analyses focus primarily on treatment expansion, early detection is a prerequisite for timely and effective treatment delivery.
Moreover, health services research on collaborative care models for depression in primary care settings has demonstrated both improved clinical outcomes and favorable cost-effectiveness relative to usual care (Katon et al., 1999; Unützer et al., 2002; Bayer et al., 2026). These findings suggest that systematic approaches to early identification embedded within primary care infrastructures can generate economic benefits when evaluated from a societal perspective. In severe mental disorders such as psychosis, early intervention services have been associated with improved functional outcomes and reduced hospitalization, outcomes that carry significant economic implications.
Taken together, the epidemiological, clinical, and economic evidence converges on a central conclusion: delayed detection of mental disorders amplifies costs at both individual and societal levels, whereas early screening and detection have the potential to mitigate long-term economic burden. The following sections will examine empirical evidence from specific diagnostic domains, including early psychosis, depression, and anxiety disorders, with particular emphasis on cost-effectiveness and long-term economic outcomes.
Empirical Economic Evidence from Early Psychosis, Depression, and Anxiety Screening Programs
The economic case for early screening and detection of mental disorders becomes particularly compelling when examined through disorder-specific evidence. Among severe mental illnesses, psychotic disorders provide one of the clearest demonstrations of how timing of intervention affects long-term economic outcomes. Schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders are associated with substantial direct treatment costs, but even more pronounced indirect costs due to unemployment, disability, and caregiver burden. Longitudinal economic analyses have shown that societal costs in schizophrenia are driven primarily by productivity losses rather than medication expenditures (Cloutier et al., 2016). Importantly, the duration of untreated psychosis has been consistently associated with worse clinical and functional outcomes, including lower rates of remission and reduced occupational functioning (Marshall et al., 2005).
Early intervention services for first-episode psychosis have therefore been developed with the explicit aim of reducing the duration of untreated illness and improving long-term trajectories. The randomized controlled trial conducted by Petersen et al. (2005) in Denmark demonstrated that specialized early intervention services led to superior clinical and social outcomes compared with standard treatment. From an economic perspective, improved functional recovery translates into higher probabilities of workforce participation and reduced reliance on disability benefits. Subsequent cost-effectiveness analyses have indicated that early intervention services for psychosis can be cost-effective, particularly when evaluated over longer time horizons that incorporate societal costs (McCrone et al., 2010). While initial program costs may exceed those of standard care due to multidisciplinary staffing and outreach components, reductions in hospitalization rates and improved functional outcomes offset these expenditures over time.
The economic rationale is similarly strong in the case of major depressive disorder, which is among the most prevalent and economically burdensome psychiatric conditions. Depression is associated with significant absenteeism and presenteeism, both of which contribute to reduced workplace productivity. In a comprehensive analysis of the economic burden of major depressive disorder in the United States, Greenberg et al. (2015) found that workplace costs accounted for the largest share of total expenditures. Early identification of depressive symptoms in primary care settings has been shown to improve treatment initiation rates and clinical outcomes when combined with structured care pathways. The collaborative care model evaluated in the IMPACT trial demonstrated that systematic screening and proactive treatment management for late-life depression improved depression outcomes and was cost-effective compared with usual care (Unützer et al., 2002). Long-term follow-up analyses suggested sustained benefits in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), reinforcing the economic value of early, structured detection and management.
In addition to depression, anxiety disorders contribute significantly to disability and economic loss. Although anxiety disorders are often less visible in health policy discussions than psychotic disorders, they frequently emerge early in life and are associated with chronic impairment when untreated. Epidemiological evidence indicates substantial delays between onset and treatment initiation (Wang et al., 2005). These delays increase the likelihood of comorbidity, including depression and substance use disorders, thereby compounding economic costs. Economic modeling conducted under the auspices of the World Health Organization has demonstrated that scaled-up treatment for depression and anxiety disorders yields positive returns on investment due to productivity gains that exceed treatment costs (Chisholm et al., 2016). Since treatment expansion presupposes case identification, these findings indirectly support the economic logic of systematic early screening mechanisms within primary care and community settings.
A central methodological consideration in evaluating screening programs is whether screening alone improves outcomes. Evidence suggests that screening must be linked to accessible, evidence-based treatment pathways in order to produce measurable economic benefit. The United States Preventive Services Task Force has concluded that depression screening in primary care settings improves outcomes when adequate systems are in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up (Siu et al., 2016). From a health economics perspective, screening without treatment infrastructure risks generating additional costs without commensurate benefit. Conversely, integrated screening and stepped-care treatment models create conditions under which early detection can alter cost trajectories.
Across diagnostic categories, several economic mechanisms explain why early detection may yield fiscal advantages. First, early-stage illness is often less complex and more responsive to treatment, reducing the need for intensive and costly services such as inpatient hospitalization. Second, functional preservation during critical developmental or working years protects human capital and mitigates long-term productivity losses. Third, early treatment reduces the risk of chronicity and comorbidity, both of which increase cumulative healthcare expenditures. When these factors are incorporated into long-term economic models, early detection strategies frequently demonstrate favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
It is important, however, to acknowledge that not all screening initiatives automatically generate cost savings. The cost-effectiveness of screening depends on disorder prevalence, test sensitivity and specificity, treatment efficacy, and system capacity. Nonetheless, in high-burden conditions such as depression and psychosis—where prevalence is substantial and effective treatments exist—the balance of evidence suggests that early detection integrated with structured care pathways is economically justified.
The next section will examine macroeconomic and health systems implications, including long-term productivity modeling, social welfare expenditures, and policy-level cost-benefit considerations.
Macroeconomic and Health Systems Implications
Beyond disorder-specific cost-effectiveness analyses, the economic advantages of early screening and detection of mental disorders become even more pronounced when examined at the macroeconomic and systems levels. Mental health influences aggregate productivity, labor force participation, educational attainment, and long-term economic growth. Consequently, delayed detection of mental illness is not only a clinical issue but also a structural economic concern.
At the population level, mental disorders substantially reduce labor market participation and work performance. Depression and anxiety are strongly associated with absenteeism and presenteeism, both of which diminish effective labor supply (Greenberg et al., 2015). When mental disorders remain untreated or are detected only after prolonged impairment, individuals are more likely to exit the workforce, transition to disability benefits, or experience long-term unemployment. These outcomes generate sustained fiscal pressure through reduced tax revenues and increased social protection expenditures.
Macroeconomic modeling suggests that mental health interventions can yield measurable returns on investment when productivity gains are incorporated. In a global return-on-investment analysis covering 36 countries, Chisholm et al. (2016) estimated that every US dollar invested in scaled-up treatment for depression and anxiety produces a fourfold return in improved health and productivity. Although this analysis focused on treatment expansion rather than screening per se, early detection is a prerequisite for effective treatment coverage. Without systematic identification of cases, treatment scale-up cannot reach individuals during earlier, more responsive stages of illness. Therefore, the macroeconomic gains identified in such models implicitly depend on timely case detection mechanisms.
From a health systems perspective, late detection of mental disorders frequently results in high-cost service utilization patterns. Individuals who do not receive early outpatient care are more likely to present in crisis settings, including emergency departments and inpatient psychiatric units. In severe mental illness, recurrent hospitalization constitutes a significant proportion of direct healthcare costs (Cloutier et al., 2016). Early intervention models, particularly in psychosis, have demonstrated reductions in hospitalization rates and duration of inpatient stays (Petersen et al., 2005; McCrone et al., 2010). Reduced reliance on acute care settings contributes to long-term cost containment within publicly funded health systems.
The life-course dimension further strengthens the economic argument for early detection. Because a substantial proportion of mental disorders begin in childhood and adolescence (Kessler et al., 2005), untreated symptoms during formative years may impair educational attainment and skill acquisition. Lower educational achievement is strongly correlated with reduced lifetime earnings and increased probability of welfare dependence. Early screening in school-based or primary care settings therefore has implications that extend decades beyond the initial intervention. By preserving educational continuity and early occupational functioning, early detection strategies protect future tax revenues and mitigate intergenerational transmission of socioeconomic disadvantage.
Another critical macroeconomic consideration involves comorbidity with physical health conditions. Mental disorders frequently co-occur with chronic physical illnesses, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Depression, for example, is associated with poorer adherence to medical treatment and increased healthcare utilization in patients with chronic disease. Collaborative care models that integrate mental health screening and treatment into primary care have demonstrated not only improved psychiatric outcomes but also better management of comorbid medical conditions (Katon et al., 1999). Improved adherence and disease control may reduce downstream medical expenditures, thereby generating additional indirect economic benefits beyond mental health service savings alone.
Policy-level evaluations increasingly emphasize the distinction between healthcare-sector and societal perspectives in economic assessment. While screening programs may impose upfront costs within health budgets, broader societal analyses often reveal net economic gains once productivity effects and social transfer payments are included. This distinction is particularly salient in publicly financed systems where ministries of health bear screening costs but ministries of finance and labor capture productivity gains. Recognizing these cross-sectoral dynamics is essential for rational policy design.
Nevertheless, economic implementation requires careful attention to screening quality and system readiness. Screening initiatives that lack adequate referral pathways or treatment capacity risk generating false positives, unnecessary costs, and potential stigma without meaningful outcome improvement. Evidence from the United States Preventive Services Task Force indicates that depression screening improves outcomes when systems ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and follow-up (Siu et al., 2016). Thus, the economic case for screening is contingent upon integration within coordinated care models rather than isolated detection efforts.
In sum, macroeconomic evidence indicates that early screening and detection of mental disorders contribute to economic resilience through multiple pathways: preserving workforce participation, reducing disability expenditures, lowering acute care utilization, improving management of comorbid conditions, and protecting long-term human capital formation. When evaluated over extended time horizons and from a societal perspective, early detection strategies align with principles of fiscal sustainability and economic growth.
The next section will address methodological considerations, including cost-effectiveness thresholds, limitations of existing economic evidence, and implications for future research.
Methodological Considerations, Limitations, and Implications for Future Research
Economic evaluations of early screening and early detection of mental disorders must be interpreted within the methodological frameworks that govern health technology assessment and preventive intervention analysis. Cost-effectiveness studies typically employ incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. In mental health, QALYs capture both symptom reduction and improvements in functional status, though measurement challenges remain due to the multidimensional nature of psychiatric outcomes.
One methodological issue concerns time horizon selection. Short-term evaluations may underestimate the economic value of early detection because many of its benefits—particularly those related to educational attainment, sustained employment, and prevention of chronicity—accrue over extended periods. For example, early intervention services in psychosis may not demonstrate immediate cost savings due to higher initial service intensity, yet longer-term analyses have shown improved cost-effectiveness once reductions in hospitalization and disability are considered (McCrone et al., 2010). Evaluations with truncated follow-up risk biasing conclusions against preventive strategies.
A second methodological consideration involves perspective. Analyses limited to the healthcare payer perspective frequently exclude productivity gains and reductions in social welfare expenditures. However, in disorders such as depression and anxiety, indirect costs often exceed direct medical costs (Greenberg et al., 2015). Consequently, societal perspective analyses provide a more comprehensive assessment of economic impact. Chisholm et al. (2016) explicitly incorporated productivity gains into their global return-on-investment model, demonstrating substantially more favorable economic outcomes than would be observed under a narrow healthcare budget perspective.
A third issue concerns screening specificity and linkage to care. Screening programs incur costs related to test administration, follow-up evaluation, and potential false positives. Economic value depends critically on the sensitivity and specificity of screening instruments and the availability of evidence-based treatments. The United States Preventive Services Task Force has emphasized that depression screening improves outcomes only when systems are in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up (Siu et al., 2016). Therefore, economic models must account for real-world implementation conditions, including workforce capacity and care coordination infrastructure.
Heterogeneity across populations also affects cost-effectiveness estimates. Age, socioeconomic status, baseline prevalence, and healthcare access patterns influence both the likelihood of case detection and the magnitude of productivity gains. Early screening in adolescents may yield particularly high long-term returns due to life-course human capital preservation, consistent with epidemiological findings that most lifetime mental disorders emerge before early adulthood (Kessler et al., 2005). However, empirical longitudinal economic data spanning decades remain limited.
Several limitations characterize the current evidence base. First, many cost-effectiveness analyses rely on modeling assumptions extrapolated from short-term trial data. Second, indirect cost estimations, especially those involving presenteeism, vary depending on valuation methodology. Third, macroeconomic models may assume full treatment adherence and sustained clinical benefit, which may not reflect routine practice. Additionally, most economic evidence derives from high-income countries, limiting generalizability to low- and middle-income settings where treatment gaps are wider and health system capacity differs.
Despite these limitations, the convergence of epidemiological, clinical, and economic findings supports a consistent conclusion: delayed detection of mental disorders amplifies long-term societal costs, whereas early identification linked to effective intervention improves outcomes and frequently demonstrates favorable cost-effectiveness. The strength of the economic case increases when evaluations incorporate productivity, educational attainment, and disability expenditure effects across the life course.
Future research should prioritize long-term prospective cohort studies linking early screening exposure to labor market trajectories and healthcare utilization over extended follow-up periods. Cross-sector fiscal modeling that integrates health, labor, and social protection data would provide policymakers with more precise estimates of return on investment. Furthermore, implementation research is needed to determine how screening programs can be embedded efficiently within primary care, school-based services, and digital platforms while maintaining high specificity and minimizing unintended harms.
Conclusions
Mental disorders impose a profound and sustained economic burden on individuals, health systems, and national economies. A substantial proportion of this burden arises not solely from treatment expenditures but from productivity losses, disability, reduced educational attainment, and long-term labor market detachment. The evidence reviewed in this paper demonstrates that delayed detection of mental disorders is associated with worsened clinical trajectories, increased acute care utilization, and amplified indirect costs. Conversely, early screening and early detection—when embedded within coordinated care systems capable of delivering evidence-based interventions—are associated with improved functional outcomes and favorable economic profiles.
Empirical findings from early psychosis services indicate that reducing the duration of untreated illness improves social and occupational functioning and can be cost-effective over extended time horizons (Petersen et al., 2005; McCrone et al., 2010). In common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety, workplace productivity losses constitute a dominant share of total economic burden (Greenberg et al., 2015), and return-on-investment modeling suggests that scaling up treatment yields net economic gains (Chisholm et al., 2016). Because effective treatment requires timely case identification, systematic early screening represents a foundational economic strategy rather than an optional clinical add-on.
From a macroeconomic perspective, early detection contributes to economic resilience by preserving human capital during critical developmental and working years. Given that the majority of lifetime mental disorders emerge before age twenty-four (Kessler et al., 2005), failure to identify and treat early symptoms risks compounding disadvantage across the life course. When evaluated from a societal perspective that incorporates productivity, disability payments, and long-term healthcare utilization, early screening strategies align with principles of fiscal sustainability and efficient resource allocation.
While methodological limitations remain—including reliance on modeling assumptions and variability in indirect cost estimation—the convergence of epidemiological and economic evidence supports the integration of systematic mental health screening within primary care and community settings. For policymakers concerned with health system sustainability and national productivity, early detection of mental disorders should be regarded as a high-value investment in both public health and economic stability.
References
- Ang, Y. S., Gelda, S. E., & Pizzagalli, D. A. (2023). Cognitive effort-based decision-making in major depressive disorder. Psychological Medicine, 53(9), 4228-4235. [CrossRef]
- Arroll, B., Goodyear-Smith, F., Crengle, S., Gunn, J., Kerse, N., Fishman, T.,... & Hatcher, S. (2010). Validation of PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 to screen for major depression in the primary care population. The annals of family medicine, 8(4), 348-353. [CrossRef]
- Bayer, Y. M., Dadon, T., Shreiber, E. (2026). Economic Returns and Policy Implications of Early Depression Screening: A Systematic Review of U.S. Evidence. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics. Efirst.
- Bloom, D. E., Cafiero, E. T., Jané-Llopis, E., Abrahams-Gessel, S., Bloom, L. R., Fathima, S., Feigl, A. B., Gaziano, T., Mowafi, M., O’Farrell, D., Ozaltin, E., Pandya, A., Prettner, K., Rosenberg, L., Seligman, B., Stein, A., & Weinstein, C. (2011). The global economic burden of noncommunicable diseases. World Economic Forum.
- Chisholm, D., Sweeny, K., Sheehan, P., Rasmussen, B., Smit, F., Cuijpers, P., & Saxena, S. (2016). Scaling-up treatment of depression and anxiety: A global return on investment analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(5), 415–424. [CrossRef]
- Cloutier, M., Aigbogun, M. S., Guerin, A., Nitulescu, R., Ramanakumar, A. V., Kamat, S. A., DeLucia, M., Duffy, R., Legacy, S. N., & Henderson, C. (2016). The economic burden of schizophrenia in the United States in 2013. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 77(6), 764–771. [CrossRef]
- Greenberg, P. E., Fournier, A.-A., Sisitsky, T., Pike, C. T., & Kessler, R. C. (2015). The economic burden of adults with major depressive disorder in the United States (2005 and 2010). The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 76(2), 155–162. [CrossRef]
- Katon, W., Von Korff, M., Lin, E., Walker, E., Simon, G. E., Bush, T., Robinson, P., & Russo, J. (1999). Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines: Impact on depression in primary care. JAMA, 273(13), 1026–1031. (Note: Original collaborative care work by Katon et al. spans multiple publications; this citation reflects foundational evidence on collaborative depression management.). [CrossRef]
- Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 593–602. [CrossRef]
- Marshall, M., Lewis, S., Lockwood, A., Drake, R., Jones, P., & Croudace, T. (2005). Association between duration of untreated psychosis and outcome in cohorts of first-episode patients: A systematic review. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(9), 975–983. [CrossRef]
- McCrone, P., Park, A.-L., Knapp, M., & Dhanasiri, S. (2010). Economic evaluation of early intervention (OPUS) for young people with first-episode psychosis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 196(5), 377–382. [CrossRef]
- Petersen, L., Jeppesen, P., Thorup, A., Abel, M.-B., Øhlenschlæger, J., Christensen, T. Ø., Krarup, G., Jørgensen, P., & Nordentoft, M. (2005). A randomised multicentre trial of integrated versus standard treatment for patients with a first episode of psychotic illness. BMJ, 331(7517), 602. [CrossRef]
- Siu, A. L., Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Baumann, L. C., Davidson, K. W., Ebell, M., García, F. A. R., Gillman, M., Herzstein, J., Kemper, A. R., Krist, A. H., Kurth, A. E., Owens, D. K., Phillips, W. R., Phipps, M. G., Pignone, M. P., & US Preventive Services Task Force. (2016). Screening for depression in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 315(4), 380–387. [CrossRef]
- Unützer, J., Katon, W., Callahan, C. M., Williams, J. W., Hunkeler, E., Harpole, L., Hoffing, M., Della Penna, R. D., Noël, P. H., Lin, E. H. B., Areán, P. A., Hegel, M. T., Tang, L., Belin, T. R., Oishi, S., & Langston, C. (2002). Collaborative care management of late-life depression in the primary care setting: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288(22), 2836–2845. [CrossRef]
- Whiteford, H. A., Degenhardt, L., Rehm, J., Baxter, A. J., Ferrari, A. J., Erskine, H. E., Charlson, F. J., Norman, R. E., Flaxman, A. D., Johns, N., Burstein, R., Murray, C. J. L., & Vos, T. (2013). Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders. The Lancet, 382(9904), 1575–1586. [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. (2017). Depression and other common mental disorders: Global health estimates. World Health Organization.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
